SAYADA BEGUM Vs. QAISAR DAD KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal impugns an order dated 14.10.2016 of the First Appellate Court in RCA no. 76/2016 which set aside the decree granted in favour of the appellant in her suit for eviction of the respondent from an area forming part of village Ghonda Chauhan Bangar in north-east Delhi. At the first appellate stage, the respondent had argued that the suit area being "urbanised" and forming part of Seelampur Revenue District was covered under the Delhi Rent Control Act, therefore, the Civil Judge could not have adjudicated upon the suit. The evidence considered by the first Appellate Court was a statement of the Kanoongo (from the office of the SDM of the area). However, a perusal of his testimony would show that he did not bring or produce or allude to any notification under section 507 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (DMC) Act, 1957; nor to a notification extending coverage of the Delhi Rent Control (DRC) Act, 1958 over the suit property.

(2.) What is to be considered is: Whether as per Clause (c) aforementioned, the municipal area in which the suit property was situate, had been urbanised. The process of urbanisation from a rural to urban area in Delhi is an established procedure, resulting in publication of a Notification under section 507 of the DMC Act. The statement of the SDM concerned, Ex. DW2/1, shows that of the 7 villages in Seelampur only four had been urbanised; he admitted that apropos village Ghonda Chauhan Bangar, he could not produce any information under section 507 of the DMC Act or any record or notification extending applicability of the Delhi Rent Control Act to the said village. Furthermore, the Kanoongo from the office of SDM stated that he could not produce a notification under section 507 of the DMC Act for the aforesaid Sub Division.

(3.) The appellant/plaintiff had proceeded for the eviction of the respondent in her civil suit because the DRC Act had not been extended to the village/area where the premises were located. Indeed, she had no option. What she had to do was to contend that the DRC Act was not applicable to the suit property because there was no requisite notification in this regard. Apart from stating the non-existence of any such notification, she could not have done more. A void, a negative, a non-existence cannot be proven.